If the Senate wasn’t on one of its many breaks, it would be fair to anticipate a considerable degree of angst in the hallways as Liberal and Conservative appointees alike gathered to discuss the auditor general’s decision to audit all their expense claims.

“Jeez, let’s see, did I claim that beer in Tabernak when I gave that speech on housing policy? Or was it a housing claim I made that time I had too many beers? It’s so hard to recall. Can someone turn on this computer? I better check that calendar thingie. Where’s my aide?”

It’s well to recall that the great Senate spending scandal all began just over a year ago when that same auditor general, Michael Ferguson, issued a report that seemed relatively innocuous at the time.

The main focus was on contracting and procurement procedures in the House of Commons and the Senate. Not surprisingly, given what we now know about the Senate’s arcane approach to these things, it found “weaknesses” in reporting procedures to the internal economy committee, which handled spending issues. Almost as an afterthought, it found no major problems with MP expense claims, but suggested the Senate could tighten its practices.

“While 99.4 per cent of those claims are reviewed, not all claims for senator travel and living expenses had the correct supporting receipts or explanations,” the CBC noted. In sampling seven claims for residence allowances, it found that “in two of the seven … Senate administration didn’t have the correct documents to support the expense claims.”

It grew from there. In November the internal economy committee began to double check claims by Sen. Patrick Brazeau, who maintained his primary residence was in Maniwaki, Que., 135 km outside of Ottawa. In December, the Ottawa Citizen reported Sen. Mike Duffy had sought $33,000 in residential allowances, claiming a cottage in Prince Edward Island as his main residence. Pursued by the Citizen, he didn’t handle the questions well : “I have done nothing wrong, and am frankly tired of your B.S.”, he responded to one reporter’s inquiry.

A spokeswoman for Brazeau took similar umbrage at suggestions he might have fiddled his expenses. “Senator Brazeau is in full and complete compliance with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration’s travel policy,” she insisted.

Fast-forward eight months and Brazeau‘s pay is being docked to repay $48,000 in inappropriate claims, while Duffy has gone to ground after months of stinging revelations about his spending and accounting habits. Is it any wonder other senators might be concerned?

Not, of course, if they were honest. But the intense scrutiny of recent months has also verified that the rules and regulations governing Senate expenses are less than stringent. Pamela Wallin, whose claim for more than $500,000 in travel expenses put her in the crosshairs this week, says the rules weren’t clear, and that she’d been assured many of her claims were valid. “Travel expenses, which were approved and paid by Senate finance in 2009, in 2010, in 2011, have, in a number of cases, now been disallowed,” Wallin complained Monday.

“I have done nothing wrong, and am frankly tired of your B.S.”

As Postmedia News reported Friday, a “boot camp” for new senators outlined expense procedures, but grey areas were evident.

The auditors scouring Wallin’s expenses noted that the Senate’s travel policy, finalized in 2012, says partisan activities “related to the work of the senator or the Senate” would be fully funded by the upper chamber, but “purely partisan matters such as election activities” couldn’t be charged to the Senate.

They could bill the Senate if they attended a constituency meeting as a speaker, but not if they just turned up to listen. So, what if they introduced the speaker, or gave a shorter speech in advance of the main speech? Would that be covered?

Duffy and Wallin, along with Brazeau and Liberal Mac Harb, clearly went beyond the boundaries of acceptability, but the other 96 senators (there are five vacancies) can be forgiven if they fear they might also have — inadvertently or otherwise — wandered outside an ill-marked guideline here or there. In earlier days, when Canadians treated the institution with a mix of apathy and boredom, no one would have gotten overly stressed if a senator or two had erred on the side of their own benefit. Not today: anyone identified by Ferguson will be dissected like a frog in science class over even the most minor of variations from the straight and narrow. And it’s too late to “fix” it now: Wallin’s effort to clean up her calendar (under apparent advisement from the committee chairman) sparked suggestions she’d tried to cover over her trail.

Ferguson said his audit could take up to 18 months to complete, though he may issue some interim findings along the way. That’s a long time to worry about the public spotlight coming your way. How much you want to bet claims for first class air travel and other dubious Senate perks drop precipitously in the interim?

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.